> On Sep 20, 2024, at 06:15, DutchDaemon - FreeBSD Forums Administrator
> wrote:
>
> On 19-9-2024 19:43, Chris Ross wrote:
>> Alright. Coming back to this, I was clearly not paying attention. At the
>> time I stopped seeing the aforementioned problem, a new one started. There
>> seemed to be
On 19-9-2024 19:43, Chris Ross wrote:
On Sep 17, 2024, at 14:46, Chris Ross wrote:
Hmm. Well, I updated my releng/14.1 tree and built a new kernel last night.
I rebooted and after dhcpcd started up it was emitting the same notices
for many hours. But, at about 07:30 this morning it stopped.
> On Sep 17, 2024, at 14:46, Chris Ross wrote:
>
> Hmm. Well, I updated my releng/14.1 tree and built a new kernel last night.
> I rebooted and after dhcpcd started up it was emitting the same notices
> for many hours. But, at about 07:30 this morning it stopped. It’s now been
> 7 hours sin
> On Sep 16, 2024, at 18:02, Chris Ross wrote:
>
> Build was from releng/14.1 back at the start of August. Looking
> now, I see that I’m behind by 24 commits, so maybe should try
> updating.
Hmm. Well, I updated my releng/14.1 tree and built a new kernel last night.
I rebooted and after dhc
> On Sep 16, 2024, at 17:55, Karl Denninger wrote:
> What is the revision on the kernel (rev and/or build date)?
Build was from releng/14.1 back at the start of August. Looking
now, I see that I’m behind by 24 commits, so maybe should try
updating.
> I THINK the only difference between you a
What is the revision on the kernel (rev and/or build date)?
I THINK the only difference between you and I that is material is that
I'm running dhcp6c because dhcpcd, at least check, has some trouble
getting an allocation on cold boot (but does if restarted), on which
I've communicated with Roy
Apologies for lack of important context, the below discusses a FreeBSD
14.1 amd64 system.
Thank you.
> On Sep 16, 2024, at 16:05, Chris Ross wrote:
>
> Hello. Following the earlier thread "DHCPv6 IA_PD - how-to” I have been
> bringing up a new gateway router for my network. With Roy’s help, I
It works, over IPv6. I don't get any error. WHen I launch dh-client manually I
get an IP. But when setting the if the rc.conf doesn't add an IPv4.
This is odd.
Benoît
--- Original Message ---
On Monday, October 2nd, 2023 at 12:30, felix.reichenber...@tuta.io
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since
Hi,
since your VNET jail has its own network stack, it shouldn't matter that your
host is IPv6-only.
I myself run dual-stack Bastille jails on IPv6-only hosts without any problems.
What kind of errors do you get when trying to access the internet via IPv4 from
your jail, and does it work with I
Someone could port the change to ifconfig(8) I made to NetBSD to add the -w and
-W flags to wait for the tentative and detached flags to clear from the
interfaces. This can be used instead of any arbitrary sleep based on the dad
count sysctl.
Roy
On 12 August 2023 18:08:42 BST, Benoit Chesneau
*From: *Kevin Oberman
*To: *Larry Rosenman
*CC: *Hajimu UMEMOTO ; Michael Sierchio
; Freebsd net
*Date: *Mar 12, 2022 1:18:07 AM
*Subject: *Re: IPv6: How does one have the system use a prefix gotten from
rtsol with a static host part?
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 8:00 PM Larry Rosenman wr
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 8:00 PM Larry Rosenman wrote:
> On 03/11/2022 9:36 pm, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 20:47:10 +0900, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >
> >> > Something like this should work for you:
> >> >
> >> > ifconfig_eth0_ipv6="inet6 fe80::53:1 -auto_linklocal a
On 03/11/2022 9:36 pm, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 20:47:10 +0900, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> Something like this should work for you:
>
> ifconfig_eth0_ipv6="inet6 fe80::53:1 -auto_linklocal accept_rtadv"
Nope, didn't work on my home net:
It's strange to me.
That setting i
Hi,
On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 20:47:10 +0900, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > Something like this should work for you:
> >
> > ifconfig_eth0_ipv6="inet6 fe80::53:1 -auto_linklocal accept_rtadv"
>
> Nope, didn't work on my home net:
It's strange to me.
That setting is actually working on my box.
> ❯ ifc
On 03/11/2022 8:30 pm, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 19:06:56 +0900, Larry Rosenman wrote:
that's not exactly what I want. I'll be getting a prefix delegated to
my UniFi
USG, and I want the FreeBSD host to be able to assign
addresses in that Prefix (not SLAAC, but static host
Hi,
On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 19:06:56 +0900, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> that's not exactly what I want. I'll be getting a prefix delegated to my
> UniFi
> USG, and I want the FreeBSD host to be able to assign
> addresses in that Prefix (not SLAAC, but static host part).
>
> I don't know that what I wa
On 03/11/2022 6:55 pm, Michael Sierchio wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:45 PM Larry Rosenman wrote:
Greetings,
I'm moving my colo to a new provider, and was wondering what the
/etc/rc.conf looks like for
getting a prefix-delegation via my FireWall, and then using a static
host part on the
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:45 PM Larry Rosenman wrote:
> Greetings,
> I'm moving my colo to a new provider, and was wondering what the
> /etc/rc.conf looks like for
> getting a prefix-delegation via my FireWall, and then using a static
> host part on the interface?
>
> I.E., im a purely stati
-Original Message-
From: Lutz Donnerhacke
> Yup. IPv6 replaced broadcast by multicast on the link layer.
>
>> It appears that some vendors of switches have started to become overly
>> restrictive in forwarding Ethernet Multicast, and only deliver these
>> *after* a Host has registered
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 01:46:32PM +, Scheffenegger, Richard wrote:
> As far as I know, an IPv6 host initially tries to perform Duplicate
> Address Detection, as well as Neighbor Discovery / Neighbor Solicitation.
> All of this typically works on Ethernet, by mapping into a well-known
> Etherne
-- Doug
> On 16 March 2021, at 03:54, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 05:29:55PM -0700, Doug Hardie wrote:
>> I reduced the configuration to the host settings:
>> ifconfig_bge0_ipv6="inet6 accept_rtadv"
>>
>> The router to:
>> ifconfig_ue0_ipv6="up"
>>
>> Ran tcpdump on t
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 05:29:55PM -0700, Doug Hardie wrote:
> I reduced the configuration to the host settings:
> ifconfig_bge0_ipv6="inet6 accept_rtadv"
>
> The router to:
> ifconfig_ue0_ipv6="up"
>
> Ran tcpdump on the router (obviously not acting as a router) and restarted
> the host. Got t
>
> On 13 March 2021, at 17:03, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
> I have two systems on the same ethernet. One is configured as a router, the
> other as a host. rtadvd is running on the router, rtsold on the host, and
> route6d on both. The router was up and running and I initiated tcpdump of
> ip6 p
> On 13 March 2021, at 17:03, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
> I have two systems on the same ethernet. One is configured as a router, the
> other as a host. rtadvd is running on the router, rtsold on the host, and
> route6d on both. The router was up and running and I initiated tcpdump of
> ip6 pa
On 21 Feb 2021, at 0:02, Doug Hardie wrote:
On 20 February 2021, at 04:13, Kristof Provost
wrote:
If you don’t have scrub fragment reassemble set then you have to
include something like pass log inet6 proto ipv6-frag all to pass
fragmented packets (assuming you block by default).
You reall
> On 20 February 2021, at 04:13, Kristof Provost wrote:
>
> If you don’t have scrub fragment reassemble set then you have to include
> something like pass log inet6 proto ipv6-frag all to pass fragmented packets
> (assuming you block by default).
>
> You really, really want scrub fragment re
On 20 Feb 2021, at 5:32, Doug Hardie wrote:
On 19 February 2021, at 01:48, Michael Tuexen
wrote:
On 19. Feb 2021, at 03:29, Doug Hardie wrote:
I don't know if this is a feature or a bug. On FreeBSD 9, the
following ping worked:
ping6 -s 5000 -b 6000 fe80::213:72ff:fec3:180f%dc0
I don't
> On 20. Feb 2021, at 05:32, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
>> On 19 February 2021, at 01:48, Michael Tuexen
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19. Feb 2021, at 03:29, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know if this is a feature or a bug. On FreeBSD 9, the following
>>> ping worked:
>>>
>>> ping6 -s 5000 -b 6000
> On 19 February 2021, at 01:48, Michael Tuexen
> wrote:
>
>> On 19. Feb 2021, at 03:29, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>
>> I don't know if this is a feature or a bug. On FreeBSD 9, the following
>> ping worked:
>>
>> ping6 -s 5000 -b 6000 fe80::213:72ff:fec3:180f%dc0
> I don't have a dc0 interface,
> On 19 February 2021, at 01:48, Michael Tuexen
> wrote:
>
>> On 19. Feb 2021, at 03:29, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>
>> I don't know if this is a feature or a bug. On FreeBSD 9, the following
>> ping worked:
>>
>> ping6 -s 5000 -b 6000 fe80::213:72ff:fec3:180f%dc0
> I don't have a dc0 interface,
> On 19. Feb 2021, at 03:29, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
> I don't know if this is a feature or a bug. On FreeBSD 9, the following ping
> worked:
>
> ping6 -s 5000 -b 6000 fe80::213:72ff:fec3:180f%dc0
I don't have a dc0 interface, but using re0 at one side and bge at the other, I
get
with FreeBSD CU
For what it's worth, as soon as you do sort out protocol 41 through
your NAT, Hurricane Electric works a charm on FreeBSD. I've been
using it for years...
Cheers, Jamie
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/f
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 04:11:24PM +, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2020, at 15:42, Gordon Bergling wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > does anyone know if it is possible to create an IPv6 tunnel via a
> > tunnelbroker,
> > Hurricane Electric for example, if the system is behind a NAT
> > connection?
On 12 Sep 2020, at 15:42, Gordon Bergling wrote:
Hi,
does anyone know if it is possible to create an IPv6 tunnel via a
tunnelbroker,
Hurricane Electric for example, if the system is behind a NAT
connection?
See https://ipv6.he.net/certification/faq.php
Search for the section labeled “Tunne
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote
in <3a46b5fe-93e3-40c8-99ea-76f3e03d5...@lists.zabbadoz.net>:
bz> On 3 Sep 2020, at 12:48, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
bz>
bz> > On 2020-09-03 14:34, Cristian Cardoso wrote:
bz> >> Hi
bz> >> Would anyone know if there is any limit in the FreeBSD kernel for IPv6
bz> >> neig
On 3 Sep 2020, at 12:48, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 2020-09-03 14:34, Cristian Cardoso wrote:
>> Hi
>> Would anyone know if there is any limit in the FreeBSD kernel for IPv6
>> neighbors? I checked the ndp documentation and found nothing, looking
>> at the return of the sysctl command I also
On 03.09.2020 16:02, Cristian Cardoso wrote:
> Hi
> I don't know if that is it. I am trying to find out if there are any
> limits for ipv6 neighbors in the kernel, as soon I will go over 4000
> servers below my IPv6 router.
> In Juniper (which is a FreeBSD) I can set ndp6-max-cache, for example,
>
Hi
I don't know if that is it. I am trying to find out if there are any
limits for ipv6 neighbors in the kernel, as soon I will go over 4000
servers below my IPv6 router.
In Juniper (which is a FreeBSD) I can set ndp6-max-cache, for example,
to support more ipv6 neighbors.
Em qui., 3 de set. de 20
On 2020-09-03 14:34, Cristian Cardoso wrote:
Hi
Would anyone know if there is any limit in the FreeBSD kernel for IPv6
neighbors? I checked the ndp documentation and found nothing, looking
at the return of the sysctl command I also did not find anything
explicit.
Hi,
There is something called
On 19/03/2020 14:01, Victor Sudakov wrote:
> Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>>
If it does, can you add a
exec.start += "sleep 2 ";
to your config
>>>
>>> OK, I've added it to the configs of 3 experimental jails.
>>>
and see if your problem goes away?
>>>
>>> It goes away pa
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 11:35:02 +0700
Victor Sudakov wrote:
> Jan Behrens wrote:
> >
> > > Can you then do a jexec test4 and run service sshd restart and see if it
> > > starts working?
> >
> > I experienced the same problem as discussed in this thread when I set
> > up IPv6 with my server. Stran
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 11:35:02 +0700 Victor Sudakov v...@sibptus.ru said
Jan Behrens wrote:
>
> > Can you then do a jexec test4 and run service sshd restart and see if it
> > starts working?
>
> I experienced the same problem as discussed in this thread when I set
> up IPv6 with my server. Str
Jan Behrens wrote:
>
> > Can you then do a jexec test4 and run service sshd restart and see if it
> > starts working?
>
> I experienced the same problem as discussed in this thread when I set
> up IPv6 with my server. Strangely, when I rebooted the host system and
> simply started the jails one
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:51:32 +
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote:
> Can you then do a jexec test4 and run service sshd restart and see if it
> starts working?
I experienced the same problem as discussed in this thread when I set
up IPv6 with my server. Strangely, when I rebooted the host system and
si
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
> > > If it does, can you add a
> > >
> > > exec.start += "sleep 2 ";
> > >
> > > to your config
> >
> > OK, I've added it to the configs of 3 experimental jails.
> >
> > > and see if your problem goes away?
> >
> > It goes away partially (only for sshd in 2 of the
On 19 Mar 2020, at 2:14, Victor Sudakov wrote:
If it does, can you add a
exec.start += "sleep 2 ";
to your config
OK, I've added it to the configs of 3 experimental jails.
and see if your problem goes away?
It goes away partially (only for sshd in 2 of the 3 available jails),
a
Jacques Foucry wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Is IPv6 in jails supposed to work? Does not work for me, what am I doing
> > > > wrong?
> > >
> > > Suppose to work, and work for me.
> > > >
> > > > Here is a test jail:
> > > >
> > > > test4 {
> > > > path = /d02/jails/test4 ;
> > > >
Jacques Foucry wrote:
>
> >
> > Is IPv6 in jails supposed to work? Does not work for me, what am I doing
> > wrong?
>
> Suppose to work, and work for me.
> >
> > Here is a test jail:
> >
> > test4 {
> > path = /d02/jails/test4 ;
> > mount.devfs;
> > ip4 = new;
> >
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2020, at 15:50, Victor Sudakov wrote:
>
> > > If sshd in the host is configured to listen on all available
> > > interfaces and
> > > addresses (the default) then it will catch your jails IP too.
> >
> > Why is it not catching the 192.168.4.204 address then?
> >
On 18 Mar 2020, at 15:50, Victor Sudakov wrote:
If sshd in the host is configured to listen on all available
interfaces and
addresses (the default) then it will catch your jails IP too.
Why is it not catching the 192.168.4.204 address then?
You must configure sshd in the host to listen only
Le mercredi 18 mars 2020 à 22:15:56 (+0700), Victor Sudakov à écrit:
> Dear Colleagues,
Hello Victor,
>
> Is IPv6 in jails supposed to work? Does not work for me, what am I doing
> wrong?
Suppose to work, and work for me.
>
> Here is a test jail:
>
> test4 {
> path = /d02/jails/test4
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> >
> > Is IPv6 in jails supposed to work? Does not work for me, what am I doing
> > wrong?
> >
> > Here is a test jail:
> >
> > test4 {
> > path = /d02/jails/test4 ;
> > mount.devfs;
> > ip4 = new;
> > ip6 = new;
> > ip4.addr = 192.1
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> Victor Sudakov wrote on 2020/03/18 16:15:
> >
> > Is IPv6 in jails supposed to work? Does not work for me, what am I doing
> > wrong?
> >
> > Here is a test jail:
> >
> > test4 {
> > path = /d02/jails/test4 ;
> > mount.devfs;
> > ip4 = new;
>
Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 22:15:56 +0700
> Victor Sudakov wrote:
>
> > If I "ssh 2001:470:ecba:3::4" from outside, I get into the host instead
> > of the jail (because 2001:470:ecba:3::4 *is* assigned to re1, but not
> > available inside the jail).
>
> Having the host
Victor Sudakov wrote on 2020/03/18 16:15:
Dear Colleagues,
Is IPv6 in jails supposed to work? Does not work for me, what am I doing
wrong?
Here is a test jail:
test4 {
path = /d02/jails/test4 ;
mount.devfs;
ip4 = new;
ip6 = new;
ip4.addr = 192.168.4
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 22:15:56 +0700
Victor Sudakov wrote:
> If I "ssh 2001:470:ecba:3::4" from outside, I get into the host instead
> of the jail (because 2001:470:ecba:3::4 *is* assigned to re1, but not
> available inside the jail).
Having the host listening on an address will stop any j
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> >
> > Is IPv6 in jails supposed to work? Does not work for me, what am I doing
> > wrong?
> >
> > Here is a test jail:
> >
> > test4 {
> > path = /d02/jails/test4 ;
> > mount.devfs;
> > ip4 = new;
> > ip6 = new;
> > ip4.addr = 192.1
On 18 Mar 2020, at 15:15, Victor Sudakov wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Is IPv6 in jails supposed to work? Does not work for me, what am I
doing
wrong?
Here is a test jail:
test4 {
path = /d02/jails/test4 ;
mount.devfs;
ip4 = new;
ip6 = new;
ip4.addr = 192.1
Hi!
> Am 08.01.2020 um 14:50 schrieb Bjoern A. Zeeb
> :
> Try replacing the
>
> # KEYWORD: nojail
>
> with
>
> # KEYWORD: nojailvnet
>
> in /etc/rc.d/netoptions.
Nailed it:
default fe80::e228:6dff:fe6f:5b%epair0b UGepair0b
I'll open a bug ticket for FreeBSD -
On 8 Jan 2020, at 14:08, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
Hi,
Am 08.01.2020 um 14:50 schrieb Bjoern A. Zeeb
:
https://www.ixsystems.com/community/threads/ipv6_cpe_wanif-not-quite-working-in-iocage-jail.81341/
Try replacing the
# KEYWORD: nojail
with
# KEYWORD: nojailvnet
in /etc/rc.d/netoptions
Hi,
> Am 08.01.2020 um 14:50 schrieb Bjoern A. Zeeb
> :
>> https://www.ixsystems.com/community/threads/ipv6_cpe_wanif-not-quite-working-in-iocage-jail.81341/
>
> Try replacing the
>
> # KEYWORD: nojail
>
> with
>
> # KEYWORD: nojailvnet
>
> in /etc/rc.d/netoptions.
Found and understood - I
On 8 Jan 2020, at 11:57, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
Hi all,
does anyone in this list have an idea if this behaviour is to be
expected?
I assume it is not in any way FreeNAS specific, of course. Might be an
iocage artefact, though.
https://www.ixsystems.com/community/threads/ipv6_cpe_wanif-not
Ah, that’s my mistake. I originally saw the issue on an older FreeBSD release
and missed that the code had changed subtly when I looked up the version in
head. r328552 fixed this issue already
Thanks for the sanity check.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 2, 2019, at 6:51 PM, 神明達哉 wrote:
>
> At
At Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:04:23 -0400,
Ryan Stone wrote:
>
> At work, our product is putting through an IPv6 conformance test and
> it's found an issue in our handling of Routing Advertisements (RAs).
> If we receive an RA that does not specify an lladdr, then
> nd6_cache_lladdr() is called with lladd
Hi,
I made a small change to usr.sbin/arp/arp.c by replacing gethostbyname to
getaddrinfo.
This is the first time I used phabricator and also my very first commit so
my changes are really minor. [1]
Could someone possibly review it?
[1] https://reviews.freebsd.org/D21585
Kind Regards,
Mihir
___
On 10/09/2019 03:17, Mihir Luthra wrote:
> Also, while replacing gethostby* calls, I came across arp. I learned that
> arp command is only for ipv4 while ipv6 uses ndp protocol. I was wondering
> if it would be useful to make a ndp command for ipv6 just like arp is for
> ipv4?
There already is a n
Hi everyone,
I have started working on the project ipv6 userland cleanup [1]. I
introduced myself here almost 2 months [2] ago but couln't really start
with project before due to time constraints. Now I started with replacing
some gethostby* calls with getaddrinfo(3).
I have some code with me whic
Hi Nick and Mihir,
if I remember correctly the ping and ping6 commands were already be
consolidated within OpenBSD. It is maybe a good starting point to look at their
sources before reinventing the wheel again.
King regards,
Gordon
> Am 01.07.2019 um 15:57 schrieb Nick Wolff :
>
> Mihir,
>
Hi there,
On dt., juny 25 2019, ult...@ultimasbox.com wrote:
Hello Mel,
While it may be possible to have an IPv6 only environment, I
don't
think it is really viable. There are simply too many things that
don't run
on or have very limited support for IPv6 that it makes it very
hard
to drop
* Mel Pilgrim [190625 04:47]:
> On 2019-06-24 19:33, Ultima wrote:
>> While it may be possible to have an IPv6 only environment, I don't
>> think it is really viable. There are simply too many things that don't run
>> on or have very limited support for IPv6 that it makes it very hard
>> to drop
On 25.06.19 04:47, Mel Pilgrim wrote:
On 2019-06-24 19:33, Ultima wrote:
Hello Mel,
While it may be possible to have an IPv6 only environment, I don't
think it is really viable. There are simply too many things that
don't run
on or have very limited support for IPv6 that it makes it very ha
On 2019-06-24 19:33, Ultima wrote:
Hello Mel,
While it may be possible to have an IPv6 only environment, I don't
think it is really viable. There are simply too many things that don't run
on or have very limited support for IPv6 that it makes it very hard
to drop IPv4 altogether and until some
Hello Mel,
While it may be possible to have an IPv6 only environment, I don't
think it is really viable. There are simply too many things that don't run
on or have very limited support for IPv6 that it makes it very hard
to drop IPv4 altogether and until something comes along forcing the
move it
Good morning Hans, hope you had a good weekend
I am happy to confirm that the patch you pointed to actually worked -- and
now I can ping various hosts outside my primary network. I did not make any
change to the SRC that came with the distribution, only applied the patch,
built the world and the k
Hi Hans
Thank you for your response. The problem is NOT with link local -- link
local works fine, it is the global one that is not working.
i.e., I can ping the router without any issue, I can also ping any of the
machines within the same subnet. But the moment I leave the subnet, the
connection
On 1/4/19 3:29 PM, Shamim Shahriar wrote:
Dear List members, good afternoon and happy new year
I am trying to setup a FreeBSD server v12 amd64, and it appears that IPv6
on that is actually broken. I have confirmed that by having same hardware
running v11.2 (amd64), and that is working without an
Karl Denninger wrote:
> I'm connecting to:
>
> [karl@NewFS ~]$ ping6 svn.freebsd.org
> PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2600:8807:8600:7941:230:48ff:fe9f:1d6 -->
> 2610:1c1:1:606c::e6a:0
> 16 bytes from 2610:1c1:1:606c::e6a:0, icmp_seq=0 hlim=54 time=58.461 ms
> 16 bytes from 2610:1c1:1:606c::e6a:0, icmp_s
I'm connecting to:
[karl@NewFS ~]$ ping6 svn.freebsd.org
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2600:8807:8600:7941:230:48ff:fe9f:1d6 -->
2610:1c1:1:606c::e6a:0
16 bytes from 2610:1c1:1:606c::e6a:0, icmp_seq=0 hlim=54 time=58.461 ms
16 bytes from 2610:1c1:1:606c::e6a:0, icmp_seq=1 hlim=54 time=58.114 ms
Which ap
Karl Denninger wrote:
> Since I can't find evidence of a FreeBSD problem internally this is more
> of a "is anyone else seeing this on Cox?" sort of request; what I find
> especially interesting, however, is that it /always /happens when
> talking to Project machines for updates whether for packa
On 24 Sep, John W. O'Brien wrote:
> On 9/23/18 17:50, Don Lewis wrote:
>> On 23 Sep, John W. O'Brien wrote:
>>> I'd like to check my understanding and then ask a procedural question.
>>>
>>> FreeBSD-SA-18:10.ip [0], released on 08/14, was resolved by r337828 [1].
>>> That changeset, resulting in 11
On 23.09.2018 16:43, John W. O'Brien wrote:
> I'd like to check my understanding and then ask a procedural question.
>
> FreeBSD-SA-18:10.ip [0], released on 08/14, was resolved by r337828 [1].
> That changeset, resulting in 11.1R-p13 and 11.2R-p2, included a patch to
> the way IPv6 fragment reass
On 9/23/18 17:50, Don Lewis wrote:
> On 23 Sep, John W. O'Brien wrote:
>> I'd like to check my understanding and then ask a procedural question.
>>
>> FreeBSD-SA-18:10.ip [0], released on 08/14, was resolved by r337828 [1].
>> That changeset, resulting in 11.1R-p13 and 11.2R-p2, included a patch to
On 23 Sep, John W. O'Brien wrote:
> I'd like to check my understanding and then ask a procedural question.
>
> FreeBSD-SA-18:10.ip [0], released on 08/14, was resolved by r337828 [1].
> That changeset, resulting in 11.1R-p13 and 11.2R-p2, included a patch to
> the way IPv6 fragment reassembly is h
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 03:01:56AM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 29.08.2018 2:35, Dries Michiels wrote:
>
> >> IPv6 Martians are blocked by forwarding code in 11-STABLE, but all this
> >> noise
> >> fills kernel message buffer:
> >>
> >> cannot forward from :: to 2001:xyz:zxy::f00b nxt 58 recei
On 8/29/18 12:01 AM, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 29.08.2018 2:35, Dries Michiels wrote:
>
>>> IPv6 Martians are blocked by forwarding code in 11-STABLE, but all this
>>> noise
>>> fills kernel message buffer:
>>>
>>> cannot forward from :: to 2001:xyz:zxy::f00b nxt 58 received on vlan5 cannot
>>> fo
29.08.2018 2:35, Dries Michiels wrote:
>> IPv6 Martians are blocked by forwarding code in 11-STABLE, but all this noise
>> fills kernel message buffer:
>>
>> cannot forward from :: to 2001:xyz:zxy::f00b nxt 58 received on vlan5 cannot
>> forward from :: to 2001:xyz:zxy::f00b nxt 58 received on vla
> IPv6 Martians are blocked by forwarding code in 11-STABLE, but all this noise
> fills kernel message buffer:
>
> cannot forward from :: to 2001:xyz:zxy::f00b nxt 58 received on vlan5 cannot
> forward from :: to 2001:xyz:zxy::f00b nxt 58 received on vlan5 cannot
> forward from :: to 2001:xyz:zx
Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
[stuff snipped]
>>
>> I think what you are saying above is that a Link-local address won't work
>> and that the address must be a global one?
>> Should the code check for "fe8" at the start and skip over those ones?
>
>It is possible that all hosts are in the same scope zon
On 01.07.2018 03:30, Rick Macklem via freebsd-net wrote:
>> [neighbor1 fe80::100]<-->[fe80::1%igb0 | fe80::1%igb1]<-->[fe80::100
>> neighbor2]
>>
>> neighbor1 can not reach neighbor2, since these addresses belongs to
>> different scope zones. On the host with two interfaces you as user can
>> use l
Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>On 30.06.2018 21:33, Rick Macklem wrote:
>>> I'm unaware of applicability of IPv6 addresses with restricted scope in
>>> this area, but when you use inet_ntop() to get IPv6 address text
>>> representation, you can lost IPv6 scope zone id. getaddrinfo() can
>>> return socka
On 30.06.2018 21:33, Rick Macklem wrote:
>> I'm unaware of applicability of IPv6 addresses with restricted scope in
>> this area, but when you use inet_ntop() to get IPv6 address text
>> representation, you can lost IPv6 scope zone id. getaddrinfo() can
>> return sockaddr structure with properly fi
Am 13.01.2018 um 23:06 schrieb Stefan Bethke :
>
> Hey guys,
>
> I’m a bit stumped and are hoping for some helpful pointers.
>
> I have two machines both running a recent 11-stable (SuperMicro X11SSH-F with
> a E3-1240v6); each one is connected to one Ethernet switch through igb0, and
> back-t
I wish FreeBSD would adopt the dhcpcd daemon from the NetBSD project
(2-clause BSD license) as a standard DHCP client for IPv4 and IPv6,
as some other OSes have done by now. It is currently available in
FreeBSD ports as net/dhcpcd.
Among other features it supports RFC 7217, i.e. stable privacy ad
On 2017/06/02 12:30, Gary Palmer wrote:
>> Assuming that you always get the same /64 assigned to your gateway, then
>> the address SLAAC assigns to your server will be constant so long as
>> you're on the same hardware, since the SLAAC address is generated from
>> the network prefix and the MAC add
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:56:28AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 06/02/17 02:49, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > Is there a dynamic DNS update method associated with Ipv6's address
> > assignment system? Since the assignment is "stateless" it obviously
> > (and does, in my experience!) move. I can
On 06/02/17 02:49, Karl Denninger wrote:
> Is there a dynamic DNS update method associated with Ipv6's address
> assignment system? Since the assignment is "stateless" it obviously
> (and does, in my experience!) move. I can deal with it via a couple of
> shell scripts, and there are only a coupl
On jeu. 1 juin 20:49:29 2017, Karl Denninger wrote:
> Is there a dynamic DNS update method associated with Ipv6's address
> assignment system? Since the assignment is "stateless" it obviously
> (and does, in my experience!) move. I can deal with it via a couple of
> shell scripts, and there are
Lawrence Stewart wrote
in <56d1a947-a0a1-0297-7151-4e36ab53c...@freebsd.org>:
ls> On 29/03/2017 21:49, Rui Paulo wrote:
ls> > On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 21:46 -0500, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
ls> >> [resurrecting an old thread]
ls> >>
ls> >> On 19/06/2014 23:08, Hiroki Sato wrote:
ls> >>> Larry Rosenm
On 29/03/2017 21:49, Rui Paulo wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 21:46 -0500, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
>> [resurrecting an old thread]
>>
>> On 19/06/2014 23:08, Hiroki Sato wrote:
>>> Larry Rosenman wrote
>>> in <20140619140801.ga65...@thebighonker.lerctr.org>:
>>>
>>> le> > le> Ideas? (I may be an
On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 21:46 -0500, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> [resurrecting an old thread]
>
> On 19/06/2014 23:08, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> > Larry Rosenman wrote
> > in <20140619140801.ga65...@thebighonker.lerctr.org>:
> >
> > le> > le> Ideas? (I may be an idiot, so any criticism welcomed).
> > l
1 - 100 of 627 matches
Mail list logo
